| Type |
Site - Score |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
1276
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Colm4's Poll
I did that, drained off what I wanted, then cancelled.
The bad part is that if I like the content I would like to see updates. The good part is that I know what I'm getting and what I won't be getting...and that's a good thing.
|
02-09-09 11:20am
|
Reply
1277
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Denner's Reply
Ditto what Denner said.
In addition I am always concerned about the malware that may be embedded in some of those feeds.
|
02-08-09 12:40pm
|
Reply
1278
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Colm4's Poll
Dunno why, but I don't focus that much on hair color. If she's got great eyes, great attitude and a great body, I'm there.
The only time I notice the hair is when it's not there (i. e., the babes who shave it all off).
On a tangential point, I'm liking the latest trend toward a nice little "landing strip" of pubic hair instead of a shiny bald pussy.
|
02-05-09 09:29am
|
Reply
1279
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Colm4's Poll
I have some old CD/DVD collections (I consider them to be part of "all digital") and have converted all my tapes to either hard drive or to CD/DVD. I burn all the really good material as a backup and have the disks coded with a latter-numbering system that is part of my overall backup system.
Someone who needs to find the backup names for a porn vid would be able to do so but with a bit of difficulty.
|
02-02-09 07:34am
|
Reply
1280
|
N/A
|
Reply of
TalonIcefire's Poll
As with any commercially available porn, there must be a market for shock and/or extreme sex or it wouldn't exist.
But I have more interest in watching them stock shelves in the local grocery store than watching this nonsense. It may appeal to some but not at all to me.
|
01-26-09 12:11pm
|
Reply
1281
|
Hustler Unlimited, formerly Hustler
(0)
|
Reply of
TrashMan's Review
Good review. But the DRM impediment would cause me to whack 25 points off the score. I joined the site a few years ago and would love to join again, but only if they drop DRM and do a better job on cast identification.
Strange how the first porn mag to get down and dirty with high quality and real porn back in th 1970's is now screwing the pooch instead of capitalizing on the real moneymaker in the industry.
Oh well. Their loss.
|
01-24-09 10:06pm
|
Reply
1282
|
N/A
|
Reply of
badandy400's Reply
Don't worry. With the caliber of people being nominated for the new Cabinet and senior Administration positions, just a bit of porn can't be damaging.
After all the Secretary of the Treasury (and in charge of teh IRS) is an admitted tax cheat, the Chair of the Senate Finance Committee accepted serious money and gifts from the companies he regulates, a Governor who tried to sell a Senate seat is still Governor, a Louisiana Congressman stashes $93,000 in cash from bribes in his freezer, a National Security Adviser steals and destroys papers from the National Archives the night before he testifies before the Senate, a senior Congressman who is Chair of several important committees runs a gay prostitution operation; it seems to me that watching legal porn on the web is almost a laughably silly transgression.
Oops. That is unless you are a Republican. Then watching legal porn is a hanging offense and will, at a minimum, force you out of politics.
|
01-23-09 06:58pm
|
Reply
1283
|
DDF Busty
(0)
|
Reply of
WeeWillyWinky's Review
Three questions.
1. Does the site tend toward real versus aftermarket enhancements or vice versa? (I's rather see mammaries move naturally than look like pneumatic rubber bolted on to the babe's chest or ridiculously oversized.
2. Their price is very high (higher than my normal limit of $25 per month and even higher than my maximum acceptable price of $30 per month) so my question is, is the site worth the money? If so, and the quantity of content is as large aa it appears it is, I could be persuaded to cough up their 3 month price of $75.
3. Is there a network involved, and/or are there other "bonus sites," that might persuade me?
|
01-19-09 06:04pm
|
Reply
1284
|
N/A
|
Reply of
WeeWillyWinky's Reply
I keep in mind that the older I get the closer I am to being a "Dirty Old Man" that can more easily get away with ogling the babes. The love of a well formed female body never fades. As one gets older, Big Dick doesn't drop in as often as he used to but Little Richard is always hanging around...but that doesn't change the level of appreciation.
|
01-19-09 05:54pm
|
Reply
1285
|
N/A
|
Reply of
williamj's Reply
Considering how much computers have changed in the 30 years since 1979 (remember the TRS 80? The "PC clones?" the IBM 360 and 370?, DOS 2.1, 4.0 and 6;12? remember WordStar and Multimate? remember when the Internet really only became available to the general public in the early 1990's?) and considering that high quality porn on the web is a whole lot less than 10 years old, my answer to your question is, NO. I really can't imagine what will be happening with porn in 10 years, much less 30 years. (Perhaps someone will invent VC (virtual copulation) in the next decade. ;)
|
01-19-09 05:46pm
|
Reply
1286
|
N/A
|
Reply of
turboshaft's Poll
It's been mentioned indirectly by others in earlier replies, but while I enjoy the "story" (see pat362's post #15) I don't need to fill up my hard drive with 5 minutes of story development between two fully clothed people.
What I used to do before internet porn was rent the VHS and copy off just the "good stuff" for later viewing. Now, there are only two ways I can save just the good parts; 1) Use Windows Movie Maker (but that downgrades quality significantly), or 2) go to a site that permits segmented downloads (like VideoBox).
I'd like to see all sites offer the ability to download just portions of a scene. It's a win for everyone. My hard drive is optimized and the site uses less bandwidth.
|
01-15-09 10:21am
|
Reply
1287
|
American Vice
(0)
|
Reply of
exotics4me's Reply
I understand the search feature aspect and I wish sites other than VB and American Vice used it.
But my beef with VB is that they are very sloppy in identifying the talent. They frequently misspell a name, thus leaving it out of the search, or they just post a scene with no names of the talent at all, thus making the scene a "lost scene" for all intents and purposes.
Hopefully those negative aspects were not carried over from American Vice.
|
01-13-09 07:52am
|
Reply
1288
|
N/A
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Reply
The question in the survey was social, not legal, so my response was on the social, not the legal implications.
The tsk-tsk issues in my example are the smoking, drug use, religious intolerance and the greens who will more likely make a SOCIAL issue about those issues rather than reading a copy of the latest Hustler magazine.
|
01-12-09 11:57pm
|
Reply
1289
|
Karina Hart
(0)
|
Reply of
kman1982's Review
Outstanding review. My reaction when visiting the site via a source other than PU was somewhat negative because all the preview site had was streaming video and there was no mention of downloading capability.
Now for tits, holy mammary, Batman. I don't think I've ever seen natural boobies like Karina's and I'm not sure I'd survive if my face was buried between them...but what a way to go!
So when you say the site permits full downloading, I went from NFW* to "I think I may spring for this site."
At $19.95 for the limited amount of content it's overpriced. But they offer 3 months for just $10 more which buys you 13 more videos if they stay on schedule. So if there are 45 videos for $29.95, that nets to about 67 cents per video (or 33 1/2 cent per funbag) which ain't a bad price at all. (Those puppies gotta weigh more than the rest of her weighs.)
So KMan1982, they will owe you for getting my money. And keep writing comprehensive, and very interesting, reviews.
* NFW=No Fucking Way.
|
01-12-09 03:29pm
|
Reply
1290
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Wittyguy's Poll
This is a real life question, not just a theoretical one.
Porn is already "socially tolerated." In fact it's much more "socially tolerated" these days than drug use, smoking, SUVs and open religious symbolism. Try driving up to a bar in an SUV, going in and sitting on a stool smoking a joint and wearing a jacket that says "Jesus Saves" while reading a porn magazine. I'll bet you get a lot more shit for driving a "non-green" vehicle, openly smoking in a smoke-free bar and promoting religion than you'll ever hear reading the porno.
In my case I was attracted to porn way back before Penthouse was created by Bob Guccione because of it's "forbidden fruit" aura. Back then some guy was always finding "smokers" ( grainy black and white 8mm movies of some ugly babe...or Bettie Page...stripping down to a hairy bush; or in some cases, actually engaging in male/female copulation.)
When Playboy showed the first bush in the 60's, then later when open labias were available in Penthouse, and Hustler was introduced, the "smokers" were considered tame. But when Linda Lovelace finally was introduced in Deep Throat, and the magazines started showing (timid) penetrations, the "forbidden fruit" characteristic continued, but now in an anything goes perspective.
Now, in 2008, Jenna Jameson is a, sort of, respected celebrity and being a porn actress is no longer a permanent stigma for any babes at all. So porn is virtually main stream today with the only remnant of "forbidden fruit" being the age limitation to view the stuff.
(Off topic. Did you ever wonder why it's OK for a girl who turned 18 yesterday to engage in all kinds of sexual activity from a BJ to a full double penetration to a 100 guy gang bang....but a guy must be 21 to view that 18 year old?)
In any case, I'm into porn because I enjoy watching gorgeous women engaging in sexual activity. I guess it's somewhat like guys who get off driving a hot car.
|
01-12-09 02:39pm
|
Reply
1291
|
Danni.com
(0)
|
Reply of
PinkPanther's Reply
Sounds like maybe they've figured out, finally, that they can't constantly dump on their paying customers and expect to make any money.
Thst, or the site has been sold again to someone who has made some positive changes.
I'm happy that you've received good response from them but I'm still waiting for responses from them regarding several tickets submitted 3+ years ago.
|
01-11-09 11:06pm
|
Reply
1292
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Drooler's Reply
I really like the idea of resurrecting an older but popular poll. New people and new ideas can be far more interesting than a poll question that seems forced just to have a new one.
|
01-11-09 10:05am
|
Reply
1293
|
Danni.com
(0)
|
Reply of
careylowell's Review
I remain totally pissed at these jokers at the way they defrauded their members with their old DRM waiver scam back in 2005 and 2006.
But when they offered a discounted membership to PornUser members, I thought I'd give it a go to see whether the site now offered the old content without DRM.
So I went in to sign up to find out that the discount was not really available after all, and no response from their customer support people. (After notifying Khan, the discount offer was pulled down from the PU listing.)
The technical flaws mentioned in this review were common when I was a member and apparently still are. These flaws are very rare in other sites but the folks at Danni.com don't seem to give a shit and let them continue rather than correct them.
So the bottom line is that this site continues to screw its members with false promises and a terrible customer support attitude.
Sign up at your own peril. But I refuse to give these Bernie Madoff types $25 of my hard earned money to be ripped off yet again.
|
01-11-09 09:55am
|
Reply
1294
|
Vivid
(0)
|
Reply of
TrashMan's Review
Good, well written review. And I agree totally.
I signed up and discovered that it was all streaming and low quality. I tried to cancel and get a refund but was denied, so I just canceled and let the membership run out. I think I might have gone in once after the first day just to make sure I didn't misunderstand what I experienced the first time. I didn't.
The $10 would have served me a whole lot better if I spent it on a couple of Big Macs. I know I would have enjoyed the cardboard burgers a lot more than that poor excuse of a porn site.
|
01-11-09 09:47am
|
Reply
1295
|
N/A
|
Reply of
atrapat's Reply
Agree. The discussions under many polls goes beyond just the question. But unlike the forum, the discussion has to be searched for when a new poll is created.
In any case IMO, the editors should consider the possibility of resurrecting an actual previous poll if enough possibly redundant suggestions are submitted, just because the subject has continuing interest.
|
01-10-09 10:44am
|
Reply
1296
|
N/A
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Poll
Are the "anatomically correct" nude statues and paintings created in the distant past and on display all over the world pornographic? Do those critically acclaimed artworks display anything more than Playboy does? Were those pieces intended to be arousing when they were created?
I suspect that, in the year 2501, if there are still people around, and Playboy hasn't drifted into total obscurity, it will be considered either an exemplar of our overly "puritan" obsession with anything sexual or an exemplar of ancient art, similar to Michaelangelo's David or Venus de Milo.
I answered no, it's not pornography.
In fact a video depiction of a man and woman who are copulating can be non-pornographic as well. The real issue is the definition of pornography...and the intentions of the person/people who create the definition.
|
01-08-09 08:12am
|
Reply
1297
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Monahan's Poll
I am currently a mamber of 4 sites using a "please stay" special price. My problem is that I like the four sites (all networked) but don't have the time to stay current with them or to add another site...but I don't want to lose the special price.
I'd be interested if anyone has cancelled, then resubscribed and retained the special pricing.
|
01-06-09 09:32am
|
Reply
1298
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Drooler's Reply
Exactly.
If a well written review by a PU member identifies issues with which I cannot abide, I will not sign up regardless of price or any other consideration.
If a PU review identifies features that I like, then the site will not have DRM or other negative aspects.
The only subjective element that remains will be price (I just cannot agree to spend more than $30 on any site ever. A site must be a real winner, based on the reviews if I'm willing to pop for $25-$29.99. If a site is under $25, I'll usually bite if the PU review says it's a good site.
I'll also pop for a "Full Trial" of any site if the price is $2 per day or less and the biller is CCBill or Epoch.
Download limits don't bother me because I try to be selective in what I keep. Also I'm not a big photo guy so absence of a zip isn't a big deal either. Occasionally I'll see a babe that I'd like to have a photo set for, but I won't make a go/no go decision based on that characteristic alone.
|
01-02-09 06:57pm
|
Reply
1299
|
DDF Busty
(0)
|
Reply of
WeeWillyWinky's Comment
Music is OK, but only if the model is dancing to the music. Otherwise the natural sounds, such as the slurping sounds emanating from a model's pussy as she's masturbating, do it for me.
I also get annoyed with excessive grunting and groaning when it's clearly not genuine.
In hardcore stuff sometimes music is good just to cover over the lame chatter and phony ecstatic noises coming out of the two coital practitioners.
|
01-01-09 10:40am
|
Reply
1300
|
FTV Girls
(0)
|
Reply of
Jeffrey99's Review
As a current member at the "please stick around" rate of $19.95, I could have written this review exactly as Jeffrey99 did. The site is all original content and has stayed high quality in terms of the professional photography and videography, but it really needs a search feature to find a model and/or specific features, such as fisting, peeing, bottles, beads, public nudity and extreme public nudity, blonde, big tits, large labia lips, etc.
One other potential improvement would be to post the aliases of its models. (FTV lists everyone by a first name only).
For example Andie Valentino (I get hard just thinking about her) has a lot of good stuff on FTV under the name Andrea; Jana Jordan appears as Yana, Gianna Michaels is named Becky, and so on. If a model isn't that popular with FTV members she won't be brought back for more...and that's a good reason for those of us who want to see more of a babe to know her full name so we can do a search on the web.
A major plus that has kept me on as a member is that the webmaster/photographer does two things I really like. First, he is superb at making the model look spectacular and shoots lovingly lingering of a model's body parts with perfect lighting and camera angles. Second, he responds personally to emails I've sent him that are candid and very interesting.
|
12-30-08 06:16pm
|
